You don't live in Detroit. You don't live in Metro Detroit. You don't live in the region. You don't even live in the state of Michigan. You haven't contributed anything to the above in over 50 years so tell us again why we should give a shit about what the fuck you have to say on the matter?

Because he's one of many forumers who's posted here for a long time and who just happens to live elsewhere... such as the Netherlands, Toronto, Brooklyn, the Carolina's, California, Nevada, Oregon... and all points in between... and all are welcome to post here to give their own unique perspective on what this region is doing wrong... and give other ideas on what it may take to correct the situation...

Because he's one of many forumers who's posted here for a long time and who just happens to live elsewhere... such as the Netherlands, Toronto, Brooklyn, the Carolina's, California, Nevada, Oregon... and all points in between... and all are welcome to post here to give their own unique perspective on what this region is doing wrong... and give other ideas on what it may take to correct the situation...

You're right, Gistok. Calling the people that have actually lived in the area within the past 50 years Sim City players, while not doing a goddamn thing yourself, is a great way to "give other ideas on what it may take to correct the situation..." as you so put it. You are absolutely right, I should have recognized his glaring contribution to the subject and that is my fault. I appologize for not identifying such a unique, vast, and worthwhile gift to us.

Translation. You interviewed a telemarketer who is disappointed we don't have a ton of bars downtown so he can get drunk and take the bus back to his 600 sq ft apartment with some random whore. All my engineer friends stayed in Michigan. They all have jobs. They all have their own cars and live in the suburbs and don't care about living in Chicago. I have friends that have degrees that live in the country because they like it. Stop trying to act like everyone wants to live in a big city and Metro Detroit is some sort of shithole. We have the 9th most millionaires in the country.

What Detroit is sorely lacking is self control, condoms, and families that have 2 parents. We aren't going to solve our problems by bringing in a fucking choo choo train filled with horny telemarketers that just got their first job and are able to buy Miller Lite.

^That's garbage. . .

This guy is not a "telemarketer." His starting salary is $80k. Are you saying you do not want this kind of person spending money and paying taxes in this state? Your problem is, you would rather live in denial and offer up hyperbole to try and rationalize your ridiculous defense of this failed region. Metro Detroit is a failed region- everyone knows it. I've had clients from all over the world come here on business and tell me how messed up this city is.

Offering up BS about telemarketers getting drunk on buses with whores is a boneheaded thing to say and you know it. You pretend as if most people of all ages and socioeconomic status do not enjoy good restaurants and places to have a drink. Eating and drinking are not exclusively a "frat boy" activity. Wanting to live in a place that isn't visually decaying is a normal desire. Living in a place where other people seem happy is a normal desire. Living in a place where one can enjoy a typical urban-American lifestyle is a normal desire. Living in a region where one can take his family into the city on weekends and have an enjoyable experience is a normal desire. Expecting basic types of infrastructure available in all developed places is a normal desire. Your attitude and lack of recognition of obvious reality however is not normal.

I've had clients from all over the world come here on business and tell me how messed up this city is.

Back in the day when the city was 1.8 million and booming, Detroit was not a favorite stop on the "road warrior circuit". Business travelers used to complain that it was a city of "neighborhood bars" where they did not feel welcome. There was also the problem that it was off the beaten path as far as trains went.

That's great. He's got stories from those couple of years of his adult life that he lived in the area. I'm sure those stories are absolutely fascinating. Maybe he can write a book titled, "Detroit: Those handful of years that I lived there in the late 50's". Better yet, start a fucking thread on his enthralling tales and he and Tponetom can duke it out over who has the better yarns. I'll tell you what he SHOULDN'T do...he shouldn't go around telling the people that live here, work here, pay taxes here, invest here and try to improve things here that they are a bunch of Sim City players. A guy whose sole contribution to the state in the last 50 years has been filling up his gas tank on the way through shouldn't be criticising the people that actually do contribute, even if it's from Hamtramck Heights.

I hear what you're saying, but I also think it's dangerous to de-legitimize what someone is saying just because they "don't live here". That just breeds insularity which is the gist of what the o/p was complaining about in the first place. I disagree with Hermod a lot but he does add perspective, particularly since he's one of the few people here who actually lived in 2 million resident Detroit.

This thread jumped the shark though, especially when one of the resident trolls (with such an accurate user name) jumped in and started throwing out personal attacks to disrupt the discussion.

This guy is not a "telemarketer." His starting salary is $80k. Are you saying you do not want this kind of person spending money and paying taxes in this state? Your problem is, you would rather live in denial and offer up hyperbole to try and rationalize your ridiculous defense of this failed region. Metro Detroit is a failed region- everyone knows it. I've had clients from all over the world come here on business and tell me how messed up this city is.

Offering up BS about telemarketers getting drunk on buses with whores is a boneheaded thing to say and you know it. You pretend as if most people of all ages and socioeconomic status do not enjoy good restaurants and places to have a drink. Eating and drinking are not exclusively a "frat boy" activity. Wanting to live in a place that isn't visually decaying is a normal desire. Living in a place where other people seem happy is a normal desire. Living in a place where one can enjoy a typical urban-American lifestyle is a normal desire. Living in a region where one can take his family into the city on weekends and have an enjoyable experience is a normal desire. Expecting basic types of infrastructure available in all developed places is a normal desire. Your attitude and lack of recognition of obvious reality however is not normal.

This a good post. The hypersensitive types who feel the need to defend the lifestyle choices of residents in conventionally designed suburbs by attacking folks who urge more investment in denser urban areas are certainly part of the problem. (Cocky, judgmental urban dwellers can be a problem too.)

To suggest that advocacy for investment in a more urban walkable Detroit is only the brainchild of the fantasy minds of horny Sim City playing 20 somethings exhibits cluelessness about what attracts wealth and capital - and intellectual capital. It's a huge problem for this region when folks with this kind of attitude can influence development policy.

Anecdotally, out of a sample size of perhaps 35 young Michigan college graduates I've met in the past 15 years who relocated out of state to NYC, DC, Chicago, Boston, SF or Minneapolis, no more than 4-5 moved to the suburbs of those regions. Unfortunately, a lot of their parents are the clueless ones who see no irony in the paradox of their offspring's flight from the region while they write letters to the editor whining about an extra $50/yr in property taxes that might support regional transit or cultural institutions.

The trend is beyond dispute. Improving Detroit isn't a zero sum game for the suburbs. But it will take an investment. It won't be easy.

Even Milwaukee has a better urban core than Detroit. I wouldn't be so quick to ignore Detroit's problems by comparing it to NYC.

I think you may be out of touch with young professionals and their interests. I may only have numbers and real life examples, but I'm comfortable with that.

You don't even have to go as far as Milwaukee. I think Grand Rapids has quite a nice downtown, and their Heritage Hill neighborhood is like what Brush Park should be, instead of the bombed out rotting hulks of homes, they have beautiful restored victorians right next to downtown.

I've been viewing this thread much to the enjoyment of myself, but I saw something that might be of relevance. My friend posted on her Facebook the cover of this month's French-edition of Glamour magazine. One of the articles is entitled "Detroit, USA La ville qui pulse en ce moment" which translates to "Detroit, USA The city that pulses right now". So for what it's worth, at least we are getting some international coverage, especially in a magazine whose demographic is women/ages 18-49.

Anecdotally, out of a sample size of perhaps 35 young Michigan college graduates I've met in the past 15 years who relocated out of state to NYC, DC, Chicago, Boston, SF or Minneapolis, no more than 4-5 moved to the suburbs of those regions. Unfortunately, a lot of their parents are the clueless ones who see no irony in the paradox of their offspring's flight from the region while they write letters to the editor whining about an extra $50/yr in property taxes that might support regional transit or cultural institutions.

I'm not sure how you get from Point A to Point B.

Your first point is that 21 year olds typically don't buy homes in sprawling suburbs, but rather rent in more urban communities, which should be blindingly obvious and has probably always been true.

Your second point is that their parents don't want to subsidize the DIA, which is apparently ironic, because their offspring don't have three kids and a mortgage yet.

Those same parents were mostly living in more urban communities when they were 21. The Summer of Love wasn't in Canton Township. And their kids will eventually have their own kids and buy a place. That place probaby won't be on Fenkell & Greenfield.

Your first point is that 21 year olds typically don't buy homes in sprawling suburbs, but rather rent in more urban communities, which should be blindingly obvious and has probably always been true.

Your second point is that their parents don't want to subsidize the DIA, which is apparently ironic, because their offspring don't have three kids and a mortgage yet.

Those same parents were mostly living in more urban communities when they were 21. The Summer of Love wasn't in Canton Township. And their kids will eventually have their own kids and buy a place. That place probaby won't be on Fenkell & Greenfield.

Probably won't be in Canton Township either.

ETA: If we are to assume that the city is the source of residents for the suburbs (which seems to be where your logic was headed).

ETA: If we are to assume that the city is the source of residents for the suburbs (which seems to be where your logic was headed).

I have a feeling the the Pointes, Birmingham, and Lower Woodward corridor are the future for young families. Some may even try to dip their toes in the city. But I have a feeling that the outer suburbs are going to have depressed real estate values for a very long time.

Your first point is that 21 year olds typically don't buy homes in sprawling suburbs, but rather rent in more urban communities, which should be blindingly obvious and has probably always been true.

Your second point is that their parents don't want to subsidize the DIA, which is apparently ironic, because their offspring don't have three kids and a mortgage yet.

Those same parents were mostly living in more urban communities when they were 21. The Summer of Love wasn't in Canton Township. And their kids will eventually have their own kids and buy a place. That place probaby won't be on Fenkell & Greenfield.

Bham, Point A is far from blindingly obvious to too many SE Michigan baby boomers (and older) for whom living in anything other than a conventionally designed suburban neighborhood is inconceivable.

Bham, Point A is far from blindingly obvious to too many SE Michigan baby boomers (and older) for whom living in anything other than a conventionally designed suburban neighborhood is inconceivable.

You whiffed on Point B.

This is my experience. Upon telling older people from SE Michigan that we're moving to Detroit, the first question is, "Which city?" When I tell them actual Detroit, the next comment is "But have you looked at Farmington Hills/Plymouth/Grosse Pointe/Ferndale etc". The in-laws who all live in the burbs are confused as to why we want to live in the city. I'm 29, he's 30, we have no kids, and we live in Wicker Park currently. Should be obvious but it really is a generational thing.

I have a feeling the the Pointes, Birmingham, and Lower Woodward corridor are the future for young families. Some may even try to dip their toes in the city. But I have a feeling that the outer suburbs are going to have depressed real estate values for a very long time.

I was thinking more along the lines of Schaumburg, IL, Evanston, IL, Silver Springs, MD, or Tarrytown, NY.

Bham, Point A is far from blindingly obvious to too many SE Michigan baby boomers (and older) for whom living in anything other than a conventionally designed suburban neighborhood is inconceivable.

Well I don't know these people. Most folks of my parents' generation (and my generation, for that matter) rented small apartments after college. Small rental apartments are overwhelmingly located in older communities.

I never heard of folks buying homes immediately after college, which would make postcollegiate residence in the exurbs exceedingly rare. You don't rent a one bedroom in Oakland Township. You do in Royal Oak or Detroit.

And I still don't get Point B. If the parents had higher taxes to support culture, then their kids wouldn't move to urban areas, and would join them in the exurbs?

And I still don't get Point B. If the parents had higher taxes to support culture, then their kids wouldn't move to urban areas, and would join them in the exurbs?

Having the option or urban living, in a historical urban core, with a sense of place and identity, doesn't only benefit the urban core. It benefits the people who work there but may not live there. It benefits the parents who don't have to only see their kids over the holidays. It benefits the region by conferring upon it a better reputation. Surprisingly, it will make the nearby suburban housing worth more.

Bham, I'm sure you agree with this idea: "Once the economic downturn ends, Americans will resume their 20th-century thrust outward and seek ever newer greenfield homes on plots of land further and further from the city, transporting themselves back and forth on longer and longer commutes by means of the automobile."

The evidence of generational shifts in taste, the staggering oversupply of that kind of housing, the rising cost of fuel and materials, the increasingly fragile household economy of the average American family, all point to that not being true.

That economic activity has to happen somewhere. Nobody is going to get a job building Pulte homes in Shelby Township anytime soon. Isn't it a fair alternative to rehab houses in Detroit neighborhoods for deal-seeking and hardy urbanites? Or would you sacrifice that economic activity because it doesn't dovetail with what you would like to see or think will happen?

Having the option or urban living, in a historical urban core, with a sense of place and identity, doesn't only benefit the urban core. It benefits the people who work there but may not live there. It benefits the parents who don't have to only see their kids over the holidays. It benefits the region by conferring upon it a better reputation. Surprisingly, it will make the nearby suburban housing worth more.

Bham, I'm sure you agree with this idea: "Once the economic downturn ends, Americans will resume their 20th-century thrust outward and seek ever newer greenfield homes on plots of land further and further from the city, transporting themselves back and forth on longer and longer commutes by means of the automobile."

The evidence of generational shifts in taste, the staggering oversupply of that kind of housing, the rising cost of fuel and materials, the increasingly fragile household economy of the average American family, all point to that not being true.

That economic activity has to happen somewhere. Nobody is going to get a job building Pulte homes in Shelby Township anytime soon. Isn't it a fair alternative to rehab houses in Detroit neighborhoods for deal-seeking and hardy urbanites? Or would you sacrifice that economic activity because it doesn't dovetail with what you would like to see or think will happen?

There is nothing worse than oversimplifying a situation, but I will try anyway.

Detroit's whole problem has been crime. From the starting shot of urban flight to the present day, crime has been the leading cause of flight out of the city.
Midtown flourishes because of Wayne State. Absent that institution and it's police force, you would be looking at a hugely less successful area. Attracting college students and young professionals to any given area depends on ensuring that their lives and property are secure.

Detroit has failed in any measure of police protection since the late 70's. So, the loss of population based on a want or need to go farther and farther out to live, just for fun, is rather mawkish. It's not really a racial issue for me, although you will probably say that's the case. I'm an equal opportunity crime victim, having been broken into, robbed, and stolen from from both blacks and whites. The common denominator in all that is that the police did nothing. No arrests, and no improvement in crime.

To expect that people should move back to the city without any improvement in crime and policing is like hitting yourself in the head with a bat, expecting that it won't hurt the next time.

Now comes the fun part. The State legislature, in their infinite wisdom, is gutting the personal property tax for business as I write this. The pile of ugliness that action will unleash on cities across the state will be astounding. We are being led by idiots. Police and fire, libraries, and city governments, all will take another hit. Detroit will too.

So another thing that Metro Detroiters (both urban and suburban) have tendency to do... They put too much emphasis on attracting residents/patrons/visitors from the suburbs as the panacea to save the city. Sure, the city could use residents and money from almost any source, but the suburbs will not save the city. Again, THE SUBURBS WILL NOT SAVE THE CITY. The suburbs will never be a large source of future residents for the city. NEVER. EVER. Until the end of fucking time! So stop saying shit like "if Detroit had a 0% crime rate everyone from Troy to Canton would just rush back into the city". They won't and it's unfair to expect them to do that.

Detroit's survival rests SOLELY on its ability to attract fresh new faces to the metropolitan area. If Detroit cannot do that then Detroit is dead. Detroit has not been able to do that for half a century, which is why Detroit is on life support.

So another thing that Metro Detroiters (both urban and suburban) have tendency to do... They put too much emphasis on attracting residents/patrons/visitors from the suburbs as the panacea to save the city. Sure, the city could use residents and money from almost any source, but the suburbs will not save the city. Again, THE SUBURBS WILL NOT SAVE THE CITY. The suburbs will never be a large source of future residents for the city. NEVER. EVER. Until the end of fucking time! So stop saying shit like "if Detroit had a 0% crime rate everyone from Troy to Canton would just rush back into the city". They won't and it's unfair to expect them to do that.

Detroit's survival rests SOLELY on its ability to attract fresh new faces to the metropolitan area. If Detroit cannot do that then Detroit is dead. Detroit has not been able to do that for half a century, which is why Detroit is on life support.

That about sums it up. But it still becomes a catch 22 of sorts when it comes to attracting new faces of any age group which is pretty much covered here anyways ,and still looking for solutions.Robbing from peter to pay paul never worked in the past.it will take a strong city and suburbs for the best case desirability.

There is nothing worse than oversimplifying a situation, but I will try anyway.

Detroit's whole problem has been crime. From the starting shot of urban flight to the present day, crime has been the leading cause of flight out of the city.

People have left Detroit for many reasons.

My grandfather, for instance, left Detroit in 1924 or so, getting a lot in what is now Dearborn and building a house on it. He could do that because he had a personal automobile, allowing him to live wherever he wanted. For a while, Detroit could solve the problem of residents who left by simply expanding its borders, but by 1929 it was stopped along all major thoroughfares by cities it could not annex.

The flight from the city accelerated in the postwar period, 1945-1965. This was when Detroit was considered a model city. Was "crime" the major reason for people moving out of Detroit to the suburbs during this time? Not really. There were lots of inducements for people, mostly white people, to move out: GI Bill, freeway construction, etc. This is a compelling story well told in Thomas Sugrue's book The Origins of the Urban Crisis.

Finally, the death knell was the 1967 riot, which was less a race riot than an uprising by black residents of disinvested neighborhoods protesting a police force that was practically an institution of white supremacy. Finally, many of the last white holdouts left.

What happens to a city when the people of means, the homeowners, the people with strong local institutions, churches, money, equity, good jobs, educations, leave a city? When it becomes a city of largely poor, uneducated, poorly socialized people? Then you start to see a lot of crime, my friend.

And so, as a kind of rationalization for abandoning the city, a whole generation of people blamed the criminals living in the city for driving out good people -- even though people had been leaving the city since they could buy a motorcar.

We talk a lot about this on this forum, townone. Feel free to ask some questions about the history, or to read Sugrue's book. You'll find that it is, as you well know, a lot more complicated.

So another thing that Metro Detroiters (both urban and suburban) have tendency to do... They put too much emphasis on attracting residents/patrons/visitors from the suburbs as the panacea to save the city. Sure, the city could use residents and money from almost any source, but the suburbs will not save the city. Again, THE SUBURBS WILL NOT SAVE THE CITY. The suburbs will never be a large source of future residents for the city. NEVER. EVER. Until the end of fucking time! So stop saying shit like "if Detroit had a 0% crime rate everyone from Troy to Canton would just rush back into the city". They won't and it's unfair to expect them to do that.

Detroit's survival rests SOLELY on its ability to attract fresh new faces to the metropolitan area. If Detroit cannot do that then Detroit is dead. Detroit has not been able to do that for half a century, which is why Detroit is on life support.

And Detroit can't attract you either, so yep, it's dead. So you can quit posting now, huh?

So stop saying shit like "if Detroit had a 0% crime rate everyone from Troy to Canton would just rush back into the city". They won't and it's unfair to expect them to do that.

Haha. Good point, iheart. I also like how this is usually paired with the admonition: "But Detroit has to do this on its own. It shouldn't expect a penny of my money to get that job done. But once Detroit has pulled itself up by its bootstraps ..."

My grandfather, for instance, left Detroit in 1924 or so, getting a lot in what is now Dearborn and building a house on it. He could do that because he had a personal automobile, allowing him to live wherever he wanted. For a while, Detroit could solve the problem of residents who left by simply expanding its borders, but by 1929 it was stopped along all major thoroughfares by cities it could not annex.

The flight from the city accelerated in the postwar period, 1945-1965. This was when Detroit was considered a model city. Was "crime" the major reason for people moving out of Detroit to the suburbs during this time? Not really. There were lots of inducements for people, mostly white people, to move out: GI Bill, freeway construction, etc. This is a compelling story well told in Thomas Sugrue's book The Origins of the Urban Crisis.

Finally, the death knell was the 1967 riot, which was less a race riot than an uprising by black residents of disinvested neighborhoods protesting a police force that was practically an institution of white supremacy. Finally, many of the last white holdouts left.

What happens to a city when the people of means, the homeowners, the people with strong local institutions, churches, money, equity, good jobs, educations, leave a city? When it becomes a city of largely poor, uneducated, poorly socialized people? Then you start to see a lot of crime, my friend.

And so, as a kind of rationalization for abandoning the city, a whole generation of people blamed the criminals living in the city for driving out good people -- even though people had been leaving the city since they could buy a motorcar.

We talk a lot about this on this forum, townone. Feel free to ask some questions about the history, or to read Sugrue's book. You'll find that it is, as you well know, a lot more complicated.

I suppose that one person writing a book has all the insights in the world. But nothing like living the history of personal experience to drive the truth. Crime drove my parents, and I, out of Detroit. If it weren't for that, there would be a shitload more people paying taxes in the city. But keep believing your Pied Piper, DN. Believe it or not, the city empied out from the core outward due to crime. The police did nothing to help matters.

Now I'd love for you to think about something outside of your "pied piperish" zone, for a second. Explain to me how Hamtramck didn't suffer the same fate as other areas in the city, up till recently. Was it better civic governance? Better people? Or a functioning police force?